Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 183.
Instituted on : 12.07.2013.
Decided on : 06.02.2017.
Kiran wife of Sh. Jitender, resident of near Sagar Villa, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- UHBVNL through its Managing Director/Incharge, Panchkula.
- XEN, City Division, UHBVNL, Model Town, Power House, Rohtak.
- SDO(Op.) City S/Division No.1, UHBVNL Rohtak.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
SH. VEDPAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.S.S. Kinha, Counsel for the complainant.
Sh. N.K. Singhal, Counsel for the opposite parties.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he had taken electricity connection bearing No. R41F6113793F at her residential premises. It is averred that the complainant was paying the bills regularly and never defaulted in making payment of any bill. It is further averred that the respondents have issued a bill dated 28-04-2013 of Rs. 76,916/-. This bill is wrong and excessive and the complainant is not liable to pay the same. The complainant saw that there was fast running of her energy meter, she made a complaint and asked the respondents to do the needful. The respondents found that the meter was running fast by 44%. Infact, it was running more fast. It is averred that after complaint of complainant, the respondents asked the complainant to pay Rs. 67,396/- as is clear from the bill itself. The said amount is also excessive because the meter was running more fast. The respondents compelled the complainant to pay the amount, on which the complainant paid Rs.10,000/- under protest. The complainant has requested many times to the OP No. 2 and 3 for making necessary correction in the bill and enabling her to pay the electricity charges for the electricity energy actually consumed, but in vain. It is further averred that the respondents threatened that if the amount of bill not paid, the connection would be disconnected. As such it is averred that the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. It is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to make necessary correction in the bill and record, not to recover the above said amount of Rs.67,396/- and also not to disconnect the said connection and to pay Rs.20,000/- on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed their written statement submitting therein that it is averred that there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. The bill of the complainant issued in January 2012 was for a sum of Rs.24,837/- but the amount was not paid by the complainant. The said bill included units for the proceedings billing cycles as well as in the previous bill of billing cycle 09/11 and 11/11 were issued on fixed unit basis in absence of current reading. Thereafter bills for the billing cycle of 03/12, 05/12 were issued based on the consumption and bill issued in 05/12 had Rs.30,225/- as arrears and Rs.3,373 as current consumption charges but the complainant made a part payment of Rs. 10,000/- only on 14-05-2013 and has since not paid any amount for the subsequent bills issued for the billing cycle 07/12 to 08/13 and has accumulated arrears of Rs. 1,01,245/- in bill issued for billing cycle 08/13. In the meanwhile of the complaint, the meter was also replaced vide SJO No. 62/836 dated 06-09-2012. The entire arrears outstanding against the complainant are on account of electricity used by the complainant and he is bound to pay the same. It is further averred that the complainant is a habitual defaulter and has not paid his electricity bill since November 2011 except for a one time part payment of Rs. 10,000/- on 14-05-2012. The bill issued to the complainant was as per his electricity consumption. The meter was not fast as alleged as can be seen from the electricity consumption pattern of the complainant, however, still on request of complainant the meter was replaced as detailed above. It is further averred that in case of non-payment of electricity charges the opposite parties are under legal obligation to disconnect electricity supply as per rules. It is prayed that complaint may kindly be dismissed with heavy and compensatory cost.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. Complainant in her evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed her evidence. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.R1, document Ex.R2 and closed his evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case the grievance of the complainant is that opposite party had issued a bill Ex.C3 for a sum of Rs.76916/- which was excessive one as her meter was running fast and as such she made a complaint and asked the respondents to do the needful and accordingly on checking, the meter was found fast by 44% and the opposite party asked the complainant to deposit Rs.67396/- but the complainant had deposited only Rs.10000/- under protest as the meter was running more fast and the bill was not corrected properly. In order to prove her case complainant has placed on record copy of application Ex.C2, copy of bill Ex.C3, copy of receipts Ex.C4 & Ex.C5. On the other hand, contention of ld. counsel for the opposite parties is that the complainant is a habitual defaulter and is not paying the bills regularly. It is further contended that the entire arrears outstanding against the complainant are on account of electricity used by the complainant and she is bound to pay the same. To prove their case, opposite parties have placed on record copy of ledger Ex.R2.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that as per the application Ex.C2 complainant had requested the opposite party to correct the bill as per the new meter as the previous meter was running fast. As per the report made on the alleged application the meter was running fast by 44% and accordingly the bill Ex.C3 was reduced by the opposite party for a sum of Rs.11764/- and the complainant was asked to pay Rs.67396/- but the contention of the complainant is that her meter was running more fast and the bill be again corrected. In this regard it is observed that there is no other evidence placed on record by the complainant that her meter was running more fast. On the other hand as per the copy of ledger placed on record by the opposite party Ex.R2, the complainant was not paying the bills regularly and was in default w.e.f. 9/2011 to 8/2013 and has only paid a part payment of Rs.10000/- on 14.05.2012 and as such the bill accumulated to Rs.101245/-. It is also observed that complainant has not placed on record copy of bills to prove that she was regularly paying the bills. As such the complainant is liable to pay the outstanding arrear amount of bills.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
10. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
06.02.2017.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
……………………………….
Ved Pal, Member
